Page 123 of 128 FirstFirst ... 2373113121122123124125 ... LastLast
Results 1,221 to 1,230 of 1274

Thread: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

  1. #1221
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Hey buddy

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    able to respond about the CRA if you still want tomorrow.
    Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?

    >>4.5 million jobs

    Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?

    >>what is the criteria for counting them?

    Contributions to the DNC?

    >>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?

    Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)

    BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.

  2. #1222
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,302

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Just more of the same excuse-making.



    As I said, I don't think you have anything to use to make me look foolish, I'm not leaving the country, and I do not seek wealth.

    This time, yer discouraged because "effort" doesn't win a debate. Once again, a young child wouldn't have any problem following my posts and responding to them.

    By coincidence, I haven't used any angle brackets in this post. Does that make me again "worth the effort," and can I therefore anticipate responses to the questions I asked in my previous post?

    President Obama and his liberal base have displayed enough leadership to have brought a number of "solutions" to the country. You know the list by now:

    9.2 million private-sector jobs added in four-and-a-half years, a decline in deficits from 10% of GDP to 2.8%, a profit on TARP — those are some of the highlights anyway.

    We haven't yet been able to lead toward achieving immigration reform and raising the minimum wage. Mr. Boehner's weak leadership and the continuing presence of fifty or so Tea Party types in the House are an obstacle we've not yer overcome. Doesn't look like much can be done on that in this cycle, but perhaps in 2016 we can construct an electoral drainpipe to remove a sufficient amount of that material.
    See, you can post using the quote function accurately

    Love your data but now for the rest of the story. In December 2007 when the recession began there were 146 million Americans working and today that number is 145 million working Americans almost 7 years later so where is your 9.2 million increase in employment? Guess you can pick a point in time and come up with whatever you want but the reality is we aren't better off than we were when the recession began it is due to lack of leadership along with economic policies that do not allow the private sector the incentive to grow.

    Decline in deficit as a percent of GDP? LOL, do we pay debt service on the percentage of GDP or the actual debt? Liberal logic is flawed. Again if you drive up the debt enough and Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years according to the Treasury site which I posted the link to over the weekend you can get that percentage change and actual debt to whatever you want it to be but is it accurate and a true picture of reality? TARP was a loan and was paid back with interest so making a profit should have reduced the deficit, where is that payback and interest in the 2009-2010 deficits?

    You buy what you are told and ignore reality because that is what you want to believe. You seem to lack a basic understanding of history and what our Founders created and that was a small limited central govt. with a part time legislature as evidenced by the 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. we have today and liberals like you clamoring for more. Facts, logic, and common sense aren't on your side.

  3. #1223
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,377

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)
    Close. The reference period is the week before the survey (usually) so employed are those who during the reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm.

    BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
    Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  4. #1224
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,326

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Hey buddy



    Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?

    >>4.5 million jobs

    Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?

    >>what is the criteria for counting them?

    Contributions to the DNC?

    >>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?

    Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)

    BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
    Bill Clinton and the Democrats CHANGED the CRA law in 1995 while he Co-opted the two largest GSEs into Buying and then Bundling and the Securitizing Sub-Prime Loans.

    6 Years before the Banks created their First Sub-Prime backed Security Freddie Mac Guaranteed 380 Million dollars in Sub-Prime securities.

    Those 1995 CRA changes allowed Fannie and Freddie to claim HUD "affordable housing" credit by purchasing Sub-Prime loans and Securities.

    Clinton also increased their Sub-Prime quota to 40 percent.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  5. #1225
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Hey buddy



    Absolutely. Yer not consulting with bankers and planning a smackdown, are you?

    >>4.5 million jobs

    Sorry, do you mean 9.2 million?

    >>what is the criteria for counting them?

    Contributions to the DNC?

    >>road construction jobs such as "flagger" that would last for one day, and that counted as a job for the month....is that what you mean?

    Well, I am using the CPS data, much discussed of late around here. If someone is in the sample and reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks, then yes, even a single hour would be counted as "a job." (Those who work in a family business need not have been paid.)

    BUT, remember that there's a new count each month. So if a job is there in July but no longer exists in August, it's in the July total but absent from the August figure. You get 9.2 million by comparing the December 2009 total with last month's, adjusting for the decline in public-sector employment.
    I did get a chuckle out of the contributions part...but, no not consulting with anyone...I do want to just caveat though, I am not possibly as adept as you might be with the different reports and such, I don't look at them for a living like you, so a little latitude when I compile my post would be appreciated, I'm just a simple guy.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #1226
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Close. The reference period is the week before the survey (usually) so employed are those who during the reference week, worked at least one hour for pay or at least 15 hours unpaid in a family business or farm.
    Yes, that was a misstatement on my part. When I said, "reports having worked for pay during the previous four weeks," I was thinking of people who report that they did not work during the reference week, and one of the follow-up questions asking if the person did anything to find work in the previous four weeks. Yer of course correct only the reference week counts in the "did you work" context.

    But I can perhaps correct you about something. (Whew!) You mention that "[t]he reference period is the week before the survey (usually)." My understanding is that the reference week is always the week before the survey is conducted. The survey is conducted in most months during the week of the 19th, with the reference period being the week of the 12th. But in most years, the process is moved up a week in November and December because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Is that perhaps where you got the "usually" idea?

    >>Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?

    Here I was sloppy once again. I should have noted that the 9.2 million figure is based on the CES results, not those from the CPS.

    Looking at the table below, non-farm employment stood at 138.3 million in April, compared to 129.7 million in Dec 2009, a difference of 8.6 million. Again looking at CES numbers, public-sector employment during those months fell from 22.5 million to 21.9 million, a difference of 600K.



    To calculate the difference in private-sector employment, you subtract the change in public-sector jobs from the change in total non-farm jobs. 8.6 million minus a negative value of 600K yields a total of 9.2 million. I'm hoping that makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I am not possibly as adept as you might be with the different reports and such, I don't look at them for a living like you
    Adept? Uh,

  7. #1227
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,377

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    But I can perhaps correct you about something. (Whew!) You mention that "[t]he reference period is the week before the survey (usually)." My understanding is that the reference week is always the week before the survey is conducted. The survey is conducted in most months during the week of the 19th, with the reference period being the week of the 12th. But in most years, the process is moved up a week in November and December because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Is that perhaps where you got the "usually" idea?
    The questions in the survey are framed as "The week before last/last week." Therefore it is possible for a gap to happen. http://www.census.gov/cps/files/ques...or%20Force.pdf


    >Ummm what do you mean "adjusting for the decline in public sector employment?" Why would you do that? And using the CPS employment data, 145,669,000 in April 2014 minus 138,013,000 in December 2009 equals 7,656,000. How did you get over 9 million? Exactly what adjustments did you make?

    Here I was sloppy once again. I should have noted that the 9.2 million figure is based on the CES results, not those from the CPS.

    Looking at the table below, non-farm employment stood at 138.3 million in April, compared to 129.7 million in Dec 2009, a difference of 8.6 million. Again looking at CES numbers, public-sector employment during those months fell from 22.5 million to 21.9 million, a difference of 600K.

    To calculate the difference in private-sector employment, you subtract the change in public-sector jobs from the change in total non-farm jobs. 8.6 million minus a negative value of 600K yields a total of 9.2 million. I'm hoping that makes sense.
    Well, it doesn't make sense to do it that way instead of just using the Total Private number. That's why I was wondering why you would have to make a ny adjustments: the number you want is already published.

    And your choice of Dec 2009 is odd. CES employment bottomed out in February 2010. So why use Dec 09?
    Last edited by pinqy; 05-20-14 at 09:36 PM.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  8. #1228
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    The questions in the survey are framed as "The week before last/last week." Therefore it is possible for a gap to happen. http://www.census.gov/cps/files/ques...or%20Force.pdf
    Well, I suppose we're just on about a distinction without a difference. As you may know, the reason the question is worded that way is because the survey doesn't wrap up on Saturday; it extends at least until the following Monday. Lately, it often closes around noon on the following Wednesday depends on how many days it is until the first Friday of the next month when the report is released.

    So here in May, if a respondent is interviewed on, say, Tuesday the 27th, the questions are framed as "The week before last, did you "

    >>the Total Private number is already published.

    Indeed it is.



    >>your choice of Dec 2009 is odd. CES employment bottomed out in February 2010. So why use Dec 09?

    Because it's a difference of only 18K jobs. The administration wants to use the phrase "XX straight months of job growth," because it's "catchy." My goal, otoh, is to go back as close as I can to the beginning of Obama's term. Otherwise his critics will argue that the lousy jobs market in his early months as president were his fault.

    The CES drop in Nov 2009 was very small (15K), but there was another big decline in December (232K). As you may agree, I'd say the underlying reality is that the effects of the recession were playing through the labor market throughout 2009 and arguably into early 2010.

    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the BLS site with someone that knows his way around it. I didn't start looking at it until earlier this year when I began "political forumming." I just read the monthly reports. All the archived data and presentation tools available on the site are an outstanding value, if ya ask me.

  9. #1229
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    See, you can post using the quote function accurately
    As I keep saying, I use the same format in every post. In fact, here ya go. Now take it slowly and maybe you won't get confused.

    >>In December 2007 when the recession began there were 146 million Americans working and today that number is 145 million working Americans almost 7 years later so where is your 9.2 million increase in employment?

    The increase is from the depth of the recession's effects on employment. Indeed, only now are we beginning to build the market out from the height it reached at the top of the housing bubble.

    As the chart I posted above (with an informed "nudge" from pinqy) indicates, private sector employment in April (116.4 million) now exceeds the previous high from Jan 2008 by 400K. That difference will hopefully continue to grow, so you'd better complain about it being too small while you can. Otoh, perhaps the economy and the jobs market will sag. Then yer campaign to disparage the President's performance would gain traction.

    >>Guess you can pick a point in time and come up with whatever you want but the reality is we aren't better off than we were when the recession began it is due to lack of leadership along with economic policies that do not allow the private sector the incentive to grow.

    Which point in time do you prefer? And now that we've surpassed the previous high on private-sector jobs, are you gonna say that it's Obama's leadership that's gotten us here? Have his economic policies allowed the private sector the incentive to grow? I guess you could hold on a bit longer (like until June 6th) and use the 600K decline in public-sector employment to say we're still not back to where we were at the top of the bubble.

    But those public-sector jobs in law enforcement, fire and EMS, education, healthcare, food and drug standards enforcement, basic R & D, defense industries, transportation, national parks, etc they don't benefit society. They're just "takers," a drain on the economy. And of course the worst are the environmental regulators and the IRS stooges and criminals.

    >>Decline in deficit as a percent of GDP? LOL, do we pay debt service on the percentage of GDP or the actual debt? Liberal logic is flawed.

    Does the money to pay the debt service come from a stagnant GDP? Yeah, somebody's logic is flawed.

    >>Again if you drive up the debt enough and Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years according to the Treasury site which I posted the link to over the weekend

    I can't recall the link. Was it in this thread?

    That $6.8 trillion dollar figure (more accurately, 6.78) is based on a time frame that begins when Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009. The FY2009 budget was Bush's, not his. The deficit that year was $1.41 trillion, a disaster.

    A fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year. Take that off the total you assign to Obama and you get $5.62 trillion.

    >>you can get that percentage change and actual debt to whatever you want it to be

    Can I? Seems to me the numbers are what they are.

    >>TARP was a loan and was paid back with interest so making a profit should have reduced the deficit, where is that payback and interest in the 2009-2010 deficits?

    It made the deficits over the years smaller than they would have been otherwise.

    >>You buy what you are told and ignore reality because that is what you want to believe.

    You can say that every day for the rest of yer life and it will never mean a thing just boring rhetoric without any foundation.

    >>You seem to lack a basic understanding of history and what our Founders created and that was a small limited central govt. with a part time legislature

    The Constitution prescribes a much more powerful centralized structure than existed previously. Yes, there are definite limits placed on the federal government. That doesn't mean they're the ones you want them to be. Ironically in this context, those limits were included at the insistence of liberals, not conservatives.

    In any event, the Constitution has changed over time. If you haven't noticed, it has repeatedly been amended. Proponents of a relatively strong central government prevailed on the battlefield in a civil war. (You may have heard of that.) As a result, blacks are now citizens. Another important change is that women have suffrage.

    >>Facts, logic, and common sense aren't on your side.

    Empty words.

  10. #1230
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,302

    Re: Economy adds 192,000 jobs; unemployment rate holds steady at 6.7%

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    As I keep saying, I use the same format in every post. In fact, here ya go. Now take it slowly and maybe you won't get confused.

    >>In December 2007 when the recession began there were 146 million Americans working and today that number is 145 million working Americans almost 7 years later so where is your 9.2 million increase in employment?

    The increase is from the depth of the recession's effects on employment. Indeed, only now are we beginning to build the market out from the height it reached at the top of the housing bubble.

    As the chart I posted above (with an informed "nudge" from pinqy) indicates, private sector employment in April (116.4 million) now exceeds the previous high from Jan 2008 by 400K. That difference will hopefully continue to grow, so you'd better complain about it being too small while you can. Otoh, perhaps the economy and the jobs market will sag. Then yer campaign to disparage the President's performance would gain traction.

    >>Guess you can pick a point in time and come up with whatever you want but the reality is we aren't better off than we were when the recession began it is due to lack of leadership along with economic policies that do not allow the private sector the incentive to grow.

    Which point in time do you prefer? And now that we've surpassed the previous high on private-sector jobs, are you gonna say that it's Obama's leadership that's gotten us here? Have his economic policies allowed the private sector the incentive to grow? I guess you could hold on a bit longer (like until June 6th) and use the 600K decline in public-sector employment to say we're still not back to where we were at the top of the bubble.

    But those public-sector jobs in law enforcement, fire and EMS, education, healthcare, food and drug standards enforcement, basic R & D, defense industries, transportation, national parks, etc they don't benefit society. They're just "takers," a drain on the economy. And of course the worst are the environmental regulators and the IRS stooges and criminals.

    >>Decline in deficit as a percent of GDP? LOL, do we pay debt service on the percentage of GDP or the actual debt? Liberal logic is flawed.

    Does the money to pay the debt service come from a stagnant GDP? Yeah, somebody's logic is flawed.

    >>Again if you drive up the debt enough and Obama has added 6.8 trillion to the debt in 6 years according to the Treasury site which I posted the link to over the weekend

    I can't recall the link. Was it in this thread?

    That $6.8 trillion dollar figure (more accurately, 6.78) is based on a time frame that begins when Obama was inaugurated in Jan 2009. The FY2009 budget was Bush's, not his. The deficit that year was $1.41 trillion, a disaster.

    A fair accounting could attribute $250 billion to Obama for adding his stimulus, the ARRA. That leaves $1.16 trillion as Bush's legacy for the year. Take that off the total you assign to Obama and you get $5.62 trillion.

    >>you can get that percentage change and actual debt to whatever you want it to be

    Can I? Seems to me the numbers are what they are.

    >>TARP was a loan and was paid back with interest so making a profit should have reduced the deficit, where is that payback and interest in the 2009-2010 deficits?

    It made the deficits over the years smaller than they would have been otherwise.

    >>You buy what you are told and ignore reality because that is what you want to believe.

    You can say that every day for the rest of yer life and it will never mean a thing just boring rhetoric without any foundation.

    >>You seem to lack a basic understanding of history and what our Founders created and that was a small limited central govt. with a part time legislature

    The Constitution prescribes a much more powerful centralized structure than existed previously. Yes, there are definite limits placed on the federal government. That doesn't mean they're the ones you want them to be. Ironically in this context, those limits were included at the insistence of liberals, not conservatives.

    In any event, the Constitution has changed over time. If you haven't noticed, it has repeatedly been amended. Proponents of a relatively strong central government prevailed on the battlefield in a civil war. (You may have heard of that.) As a result, blacks are now citizens. Another important change is that women have suffrage.

    >>Facts, logic, and common sense aren't on your side.

    Empty words.
    Sorry, done with you if you don't use the quote function properly which is probably what you want anyway because you are looking foolish and have zero credibility. Please tell me when the Bush budget was passed and who signed it? Guess you missed that one as well. You pick and choose what you want to read and believe.

    Treasury data on the deficit and debt by day

    Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
    Last edited by Conservative; 05-21-14 at 09:45 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •